muteteh

The current EF 24-70mm f/2.8 could be improved, but I don't think an IS is one of those improvements - 70mm is not long enough to call for it. Actually, I think Canon should have skipped the EF-S 18-55mm IS as well - I shoot with 85mm w/o IS on FF, and I don't see any need for an IS. The resources could have gone into some more interesting lens. My guess is Canon thinks sales would gain more from giving new photographers an advanced feature than giving other photographers a needed feature.

An EF 100-300 f/4 IS ? Between the EF 70-200mm f/4 IS, EF 70-300mm f/4-5.6, and existing EF 100-400mm, I don't see how this caters photographers' needs better than an upgraded EF 100-400mm.

An EF-S 8mm-12mm ? I think Canon needs to invest in it's wide angle lenses, but that an APS-C diagonal fisheye would sell better ?

[Why ? The Canon fisheye is a very good seller on Amazon, and practically every Canon body - including APS-C bodies ! - has a DxO module for the EF 15mm fishseye lens. The only lenses I am likely to buy from Canon in the next one to two years are ultra wide for FF, e.g. circular fisheye and EF 14mm-whatever f/4 or f/2.8]

canon rumors FORUM

Justin

We're all worried friend. The way the 70-200 f/2.8 went up from 1799 street to 2499 is not encouraging for the future upgrades. 25% plus increases are unwelcome. The only thing they do preserve is the resale value on the previous versions--which I suppose is a good thing for some folks.

I agree with muteteh and Justin's sentiments about a 100-300 f/4; namely, it doesn't really do much for you that canon's current lineup doesn't already do. I hate comparing against nikon but I do think they had the right idea in going to a 200-400 f/4.

I'd love to see the 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6 IS replaced by a 200-400mm f/4-5.6 IS that uses a conventional zoom ring, weathersealing, and newer IS. would I pay a 25% markup from the Dust Buster's price for a lens like that? a resounding heck yes.

16-50 f/4 would be a great landscape walkaround lens to replace the 17-40, the extra bit of range on both ends makes a lot of sense. agree with CR guy that replacing the 16-35 II makes little sense for canon at the moment

Logged

Sebastian

The current EF 24-70mm f/2.8 could be improved, but I don't think an IS is one of those improvements - 70mm is not long enough to call for it. Actually, I think Canon should have skipped the EF-S 18-55mm IS as well - I shoot with 85mm w/o IS on FF, and I don't see any need for an IS. The resources could have gone into some more interesting lens.

I'm totally with you here. But remember that we've enough freaks in this very forum would happily cram an IS even in a fisheye.

An EF 100-300 f/4 IS ? Between the EF 70-200mm f/4 IS, EF 70-300mm f/4-5.6, and existing EF 100-400mm, I don't see how this caters photographers' needs better than an upgraded EF 100-400mm.

Again, I fully have to concur. Owning both a 70-200 f/2.8 IS and a 100-400, I definitely wouldn't have a need for a 100-300 f/4 in between. (A f/2.8 would be a different thing. ) And personally, I really like the long end of my 100-400, so I also wouldn't replace it with a 100-300.

However, if a 100-300 f/4 would have a better built and image quality over the 100-400, people who haven't already got a lens that range could well choose the 100-300.

coldstone

100-300 is a bad choice in my opinionafter buying a 70-200 4 IS thats even more frustrating (because this is one of my best lenses) since its almost the same range with a 1,5tc (with very little loss in image quality) ...a 200-400 4-5,6 IS would be a better solutionthe 16-50 is a good choice in my opinion since the 16-35 I/II were really bad in the corners and you had no other choice if you wanted a lens that can use filters (and yes that is important)and is sharp (at least in the center)

16-50 70-200 200-400 would be just wonderful maybe with some HIS-macros at 100 (already there) and 200 16-35 24-70... would be ok too

Lee Jay

<p><strong>From EOS-Numerique<br /><span style=\"font-weight: normal;\">The above link points to a 100-300L. Iâ€™ve heard a bit about this over the last few weeks.</span></strong></p><p>If I had to guess, it could be an EF 100-300 f/4L IS.Ã‚ Ã‚ It wouldnâ€™t be 2.8...

Why not? Sigma makes the pretty-solid 120-300/2.8. A 100-300/2.8 would compete well with the Sigma and the Nikon 200-400/4 (100-300/2.8 + 1.4 = 140-420/4). If they replaced the 300/2.8 with that, I think that would be great. Of course, I doubt they will but I see no reason they couldn't.

martijn

It would be very nice if the new batch would include some reasonably priced models (below 2500 euros)...even the least expensive of those new tele-primes would be well over 5 grand I guess.

Actually I was hoping for an upgraded 100-400 but a 100-300/4 would be a reasonable alternative, with that one stop advantage.

A 100-300/2.8 would almost certainly be too heavy and expensive...

I was also thinking of getting the 300/4 prime, but now I'll wait and see if that 100-300/4 actually does emerge in the short term...with the latest technology that Canon has (like the 70-200/2.8 IS II), it may turn out to be at least as good or perhaps even better than the prime too (better IS, coatings etc.)...I'd expect to pay something in the region of 1500-2000 euros for one, at least once the early premium has worn off a bit.